Support NeoGAF

[empty vessel]

Effective tax rates for the bottom 50% are basically the lowest they have ever been ...

With respect to income tax only, close to historical lows, but not quite:

When you factor in regressive payroll taxes:

Payroll taxes have made up a larger and larger share of the total amount of income taxed.

I don't see any reason to raise taxes higher on the typical American. What I would like to do is eliminate the payroll tax entirely. It doesn't make sense to have a special tax that "funds" specific programs. It's pointless, because the government is never limited in its spending on those programs by the tax revenue it takes in "designated" for them. All it does is add regressiveness in overall tax collection, i.e., the government removes relatively more financial assets from lower income people than from higher income people. As you can see, the median income earner has actually seen a consistent tax increase over the last 50 years. This is part of the story of increasing inequality.

Graphs come from here: http://www.freeby50.com/2009/04/history-of-effective-tax-rate-for.html (site looks a little sketchy but the numbers are sourced and has a link to the data used)

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

With respect to income tax only, close to historical lows, but not quite:

When you factor in regressive payroll taxes:

Payroll taxes have made up a larger and larger share of the total amount of income taxed.

I don't see any reason to raise taxes higher on the typical American. What I would like to do is eliminate the payroll tax entirely. It doesn't make sense to have a special tax that "funds" specific programs. It's pointless, because the government is never limited in its spending on those programs by the tax revenue it takes in "designated" for them. All it does is add regressiveness in overall tax collection, i.e., the government removes relatively more financial assets from lower income people than from higher income people. As you can see, the median income earner has actually seen a consistent tax increase over the last 50 years. This is part of the story of increasing inequality.

Graphs come from here: http://www.freeby50.com/2009/04/history-of-effective-tax-rate-for.html (site looks a little sketchy but the numbers are sourced and has a link to the data used)

Am I finding myself agreeing with EV? What's happening to me..

 

[empty vessel]

Am I finding myself agreeing with EV? What's happening to me..

I can fix that real quick. We should tax the highest income earners (top 0.1%) at a much higher effective rate to decrease income inequality and reduce business and political corruption.

There. I feel better. You?

 

[elrechazado]

I can fix that real quick. We should tax the highest income earners (top 0.1%) at a much higher effective rate to decrease income inequality and reduce business and political corruption.

There. I feel better. You?

Why tax them at all when we can spend infinite dollars because deficits mean nothing?

 

[speculawyer]

Premiums have already skyrocketed. They should have just expanded Medicare coverage to everyone instead of forcing millions to pay thousands yearly to private insurers.

Medicare for all should be the focus for all respectable politicians.

This. I want to buy into Medicare.

 

[empty vessel]

Why tax them at all when we can spend infinite dollars because deficits mean nothing?

First, I don't contend that a government cannot tax. Taxing (1) creates a demand for fiat currency (since it is otherwise intrinsically worthless); and (2) regulates aggregate demand (just as spending does--it is really net spending that we want to focus on).

Second, if you'll read the last half of my sentence, you'll see that the purposes for which I want to raise taxes on extremely high income earners are plainly stated: to decrease income inequality and reduce business and political corruption.

 

[elrechazado]

First, I don't contend that a government cannot tax. Taxing (1) creates a demand for fiat currency (since it is otherwise intrinsically worthless); and (2) regulates aggregate demand (just as spending does--it is really net spending that we want to focus on).

Second, if you'll read the last half of my sentence, you'll see that the purposes for which I want to raise taxes on extremely high income earners are plainly stated: to decrease income inequality and reduce business and political corruption.

I was just tweaking your nose. I enjoy your posts, even if I disagree with many of them (on economics at least).

 

[speculawyer]

Why tax them at all when we can spend infinite dollars because deficits mean nothing?

Yeah, that is what I kept trying to point out with the 'deficits don't matter' theory.

 

[elrechazado]

Yeah, that is what I kept trying to point out with the 'deficits don't matter' theory.

It's an ....interesting theory of taxation for sure.

 

[RDreamer]

Wisconsin and Walker join the war on women

"A Wisconsin law that made it easier for victims of wage discrimination to have their day in court was repealed on Thursday, after Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) quietly signed the bill."

I think I bitched about this in this thread...

I was just tweaking your nose. I enjoy your posts, even if I disagree with many of them (on economics at least).

I love EV's posts. I find myself agreeing with him more and more every time.

Yeah, that is what I kept trying to point out with the 'deficits don't matter' theory.

I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the theories he's been putting forth. Deficits themselves don't matter in the way which politicians typically say they matter (i.e. we need to tax to get rid of them). By saying deficits don't matter you're not saying you can create and spend infinite dollars, because that's ignoring what EV and the theorists he follows are saying the actual purpose of taxing is. It's to control income inequality, to regulate the economy, and to decide how much of the public resources are being used for the government and how much are being used in the private sector. There are still choices in those purposes, and reasons why you wouldn't want to just spend infinitely, one of which is that the economy itself would spiral out of control. I kind of liken taxation in that theory to tightening or loosening the chain on a bicycle tire. Too loose and it isn't going to work at all. The chain will fall off, or you'll pedal and the bike will only slowly get anywhere at all. But when things are managed just right then the economy will work just right. Taxation is a way of controlling the flow of money and spending power in the economy.

 

[sc0la]

Wow. Just read the most disgusting racist thing I have seen in a while. what a way to ruin a nice Friday afternoon

Not linking the crap. Google or check twitter for John Derbyshire if you are truly interested :/

 

[Chichikov]

It's an ....interesting theory of taxation for sure.

It's worth noting that EV is the only MMT supporter I've ever met who actually say that.
Not saying he's wrong, I'm not an economist, and I'm sure as hell not an expert on MMT, but that's not a mainstream position even within that school.

 

[empty vessel]

I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding the theories he's been putting forth. Deficits themselves don't matter in the way which politicians typically say they matter (i.e. we need to tax to get rid of them). By saying deficits don't matter you're not saying you can create and spend infinite dollars, because that's ignoring what EV and the theorists he follows are saying the actual purpose of taxing is. It's to control income inequality, to regulate the economy, and to decide how much of the public resources are being used for the government and how much are being used in the private sector. There are still choices in those purposes, and reasons why you wouldn't want to just spend infinitely, one of which is that the economy itself would spiral out of control. I kind of liken taxation in that theory to tightening or loosening the chain on a bicycle tire. Too loose and it isn't going to work at all. The chain will fall off, or you'll pedal and the bike will only slowly get anywhere at all. But when things are managed just right then the economy will work just right. Taxation is a way of controlling the flow of money and spending power in the economy.

Well said. I agree with all this.

It's worth noting that EV is the only MMT supporter I've ever met who actually say that.
Not saying he's wrong, I'm not an economist, and I'm sure as hell not an expert on MMT, but that's not a mainstream position even within that school.

That has said what? That deficits don't matter? I have said that deficits qua deficits don't matter. Net spending at any given point in time certainly matters. But not because it "adds to debt." Only because of its potential impact on the economy at that point in time. This is a pretty central tenet of MMT that is shared from right to left.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Wow. Just read the most disgusting racist thing I have seen in a while. what a way to ruin a nice Friday afternoon

Not linking the crap. Google or check twitter for John Derbyshire if you are truly interested :/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/04/06/why-national-review-must-fire-john-derbyshire/

Seems like a poor attempt at satire or a false equivalency. I'm not mad/offended

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

I can fix that real quick. We should tax the highest income earners (top 0.1%) at a much higher effective rate to decrease income inequality and reduce business and political corruption.

There. I feel better. You?

Much better, thanks. Equilibrium returned.

 

[Chichikov]

That has said what? That deficits don't matter? I have said that deficits qua deficits don't matter. Net spending at any given point in time certainly matters. But not because it "adds to debt." Only because of its potential impact on the economy at that point in time. This is a pretty central tenet of MMT that is shared from right to left.

I'm not sure I fully understand the distinction.
Let me ask this in the simplest terms - if spending is constant, do you think that the level of taxation doesn't matter (assuming the progressiveness stay the same)?

This is an answer that I've never heard an MMT guy answer with a yes, but who knows, it could be a reflection of the company I keep.

 

[sc0la]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/04/06/why-national-review-must-fire-john-derbyshire/

Seems like a poor attempt at satire or a false equivalency. I'm not mad/offended

Did you read the actual article as well or just the Forbes article you linked?

Not implying you should be mad or offended, it just saddened me.

 

[empty vessel]

I'm not sure I fully understand the distinction.
Let me ask this in the simplest terms - if spending is constant, do you think that the level of taxation doesn't matter (assuming the progressiveness stay the same)?

This is an answer that I've never heard an MMT guy answer with a yes, but who knows, it could be a reflection of the company I keep.

No, the level of taxation matters. Taxation in conjunction with spending (net spending) regulates aggregate demand. For example, if an incredibly stupid law were enacted that required spending to be constant, then taxation would be the only available mechanism for the government to regulate aggregate demand, i.e., to remove or put more financial assets into the economy.

Now, net spending (spending less tax take) in a given year = "the deficit," so "the deficit" is really important because it effectively regulates aggregate demand (as that is what tells us how much money has been destroyed by taxation versus how much money the government has created). But it is not important--at all--because it "adds to the debt," which is how most people understand "deficit." We are interested in the deficit because that measures how much aggregate demand is being created (or, for a surplus, destroyed), not because we are "living outside of our means" or "running up too much debt" or some such nonsense.

Not sure where our communication is getting crossed.

 

[Chichikov]

No, the level of taxation matters. Taxation in conjunction with spending (net spending) regulates aggregate demand. For example, if an incredibly stupid law were enacted that required spending to be constant, then taxation would be the only available mechanism for the government to regulate aggregate demand, i.e., to remove or put more financial assets into the economy.

Now, net spending (spending less tax take) in a given year = "the deficit," so "the deficit" is really important because it effectively regulates aggregate demand (as that is what tells us how much money has been destroyed by taxation versus how much money the government has created). But it is not important--at all--because it "adds to the debt," which is how most people understand "deficit." We are interested in the deficit because that measures how much aggregate demand is being created (or, for a surplus, destroyed), not because we are "living outside of our means" or "running up too much debt" or some such nonsense.

Not sure where our communication is getting crossed.

I think they're getting crossed when it comes to inflation.

 

[The Technomancer]

A traditional one.

Good man. Now you and your ilk should try and take your party back.

 

[empty vessel]

I think they're getting crossed when it comes to inflation.

Inflation is directly related to aggregate demand. If aggregate demand gets too high at any given time, then prices rise. Aggregate demand gets too high when people have too much money to spend and want to spend more of it than there are goods and services in the economy to accommodate, including the capacity of producers to increase goods and services to meet the demand. (In other words, increasing aggregate demand will not cause inflation if there is capacity in the economy to produce more real goods and services to meet it. For example, unemployment represents capacity to meet higher aggregate demand without creating inflation.) Aggregate demand is most effectively decreased through taxation (taking people's money away). Aggregate demand is most effectively stimulated through spending (giving people money!).

Thinking back to your last question, is it that you think that the build up of debt over time will create inflation?

There is no real debt. The "debt" is just a savings program that the government operates on the side. (You can think of it as a national bank that only offers savings accounts.) There is a (stupid) law that forces the government to expand this savings program whenever it wants to spend more money than it takes in through taxation. But that's the same kind of stupid law as requiring the government keep spending constant. There's no need for it. Anyway, whenever the government net spends, the law says it has to let people put more money into savings accounts held at the national bank. The government never needs to run these savings accounts, i.e., "issue debt," to net spend, because it is the creator of money in the first place. We could get rid of the national bank (bonds) tomorrow (or, at least, stop issuing new bonds, i.e., stop allowing people to put more money into their savings accounts than already exists).

But it's also important to understand that the promises made by the government when it runs this savings program ("issues debt") are no different from the promises it makes when it runs, say, a social security program. Both are promises to pay somebody money in the future. If a government reduces social security benefits, this is not at all different from defaulting on an interest payment for a bond (i.e., refusing to pay the interest off money put into one's saving account at the national bank).

See: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=15348 ("From a MMT perspective it is preferable that governments stop issuing debt at all maturities. Sure enough debt-issuance is just an elaborate form of welfare assistance &#8211; the benefits of which are skewed to the more advantaged members of the society.") <-- He's talking about the national bank, a government spending program which primarily only benefits higher income earners (who have the discretionary income to put money into these interest bearing savings accounts).

 

[Jackson50]

Wisconsin and Walker join the war on women

"A Wisconsin law that made it easier for victims of wage discrimination to have their day in court was repealed on Thursday, after Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) quietly signed the bill."

I think I bitched about this in this thread...

Apropos to the war on women, Mississippi is primed to be the first state to effectively eliminate access to safe abortions. After the governor signs a bill transparently devised to extinguish the state's only abortion clinic, only affluent women with the resources to procure private abortions could receive them in MS. Otherwise, the women must travel out of state.

By Maya Dusenbery | Fri Apr. 6, 2012 10:50 AM PDT

Last year, Kansas narrowly avoided becoming the first "abortion-free" state. That title might soon go to Mississippi, thanks to a bill that would require clinic doctors to obtain official admitting privileges at a local hospital before they can perform abortions&#8212;a standard that many believe was custom-designed to foil the state's only abortion clinic.

Proponents of the bill, which was sent to the Governor's desk by the state Senate yesterday, claim they're just trying to protect women's health by ensuring that if a complication occurs after an abortion, doctors can admit the patient to a hospital. While all the physicians at the Jackson Women's Health Organization in Jackson, Miss. are certified OB-GYNs&#8212;another of the bill's requirements&#8212;only one of its doctors currently has admitting privileges to a nearby hospital. Instead, in the rare case of complications, the clinic has a patient-transfer agreement with a local hospital to ensure that women can be treated there.

Admitting privileges are usually only granted to in-state doctors who will provide the hospital with a certain number of patients per month. The clinic's owner, Diane Derzis, told the Associated Press that most of the clinic's doctors commute to Jackson from out of state because "they are routinely threatened and stalked for their work." And as Derzis explained to Jezebel, "We do not have enough problems to admit that many patients." Overall, Derzis isn't optimistic that any of the three hospitals in the area&#8212;two of which are religiously-affiliated&#8212;will grant the privileges to her staff and has promised to argue the law in court if her clinic can't secure them.

As MoJo's Kate Sheppard has reported, onerous clinic regulations like these, known by abortion-rights supporters as "targeted regulation of abortion providers" or "TRAP" laws, are a favorite new tactic of abortion foes. According to the Guttmacher Institute, at least eight other states require abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges. Mississippi would be the first state to impose an OB/GYN requirement on abortion providers.

While bills like these are usually submitted under the guise of patient safety concerns, many proponents make no bones about their true goal: to end access to legal abortion. That is certainly the case in Mississippi.

During the House floor debate last month, the bill's author state Rep. Sam Mims said, "If this bill causes less abortions to happen, I believe it's a positive result." In a statement applauding the proposal, Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves went even farther, saying, "This is a strong bill that will effectively end abortion in Mississippi." Gov. Phil Bryant said he will sign it and vowed, "As governor, I will continue to work to make Mississippi abortion-free."​

http://motherjones.com/print/170901

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Reagan raised payroll taxes on the less fortunate.

Just remove the payroll cap, and voila: infinite revenue!

 

[Oblivion]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dM9DVC7kd7s

Not too bad, Bams.

 

[Door2Dawn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dM9DVC7kd7s

Not too bad, Bams.

Jesus fucking christ Mitt.

 

[Souldriver]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dM9DVC7kd7s

Not too bad, Bams.

Perhaps I'm just receptive to these kinds of ads because they're from the "right guy", but damn, they're good. I want Obama to trounce his competitor the coming election. Shit all over the super conservative angenda the GOP is going for, so that that in the future the GOP goes back to fiscal and rational conservatism and isn't the movie villain kinds of evil. US politics has really fallen of a cliff.

 

[XMonkey]

Not a bad ad, but it could have been a bit more airtight if they had dates comparing when Romney said those things to when Obama did, or else you're gonna start hearing Republicans say that Obama just decided to insert those things into his speeches after Romney called him out on it.

Wait, who am I kidding, they'll just say Obama is lying anyways.

 

[GTI Guy]

Jesus fucking christ Mitt.

I like the video but would have been better if there were dates attached to all of the videos. I know the right will say yeah Obama finally responded AFTER Mitt called him out.

EDIT: WTF XMonkey? Lol

 

[Invisible_Insane]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=dM9DVC7kd7s

Not too bad, Bams.

I don't think that's a very good ad, honestly. In about half the cases it merely shows Obama saying he's done something where Romney says he hasn't. I think a more effective version might cite media coverage of things the president has done, so that instead of "one person says this, and the other this," you get "Mitt Romney is a liar."

 

[GTI Guy]

I don't think that's a very good ad, honestly. In about half the cases it merely shows Obama saying he's done something where Romney says he hasn't. I think a more effective version might cite media coverage of things the president has done, so that instead of "one person says this, and the other this," you get "Mitt Romney is a liar."

Hmm..yes I think this is better.

 

[Oblivion]

I don't think that's a very good ad, honestly. In about half the cases it merely shows Obama saying he's done something where Romney says he hasn't. I think a more effective version might cite media coverage of things the president has done, so that instead of "one person says this, and the other this," you get "Mitt Romney is a liar."

But then the righties will just blame it on the librul media.

 

[thekad]

But then the righties will just blame it on the librul media.

I know the right will say yeah Obama finally responded AFTER Mitt called him out.

The right will always conjure up some bullshit. It's important to capitalize on the perception that Romney will say anything to get elected and make it stick.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

But then the righties will just blame it on the librul media.

The ad isn't for the (far) right. It's for the 7% of people (the "middle") who decide presidential elections.

Seriously, fuck FPTP.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I don't think that's a very good ad, honestly. In about half the cases it merely shows Obama saying he's done something where Romney says he hasn't. I think a more effective version might cite media coverage of things the president has done, so that instead of "one person says this, and the other this," you get "Mitt Romney is a liar."

This. Although some of the quotes made sense, such as Obama talking about the deficit/debt in the SOTU.

Another thing no one seems to be talking about: Romney's long standing, ignorant lie/distortion that Obama has never worked in the private sector. He's been getting away with that line for about three years

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Wisconsin and Walker join the war on women

"A Wisconsin law that made it easier for victims of wage discrimination to have their day in court was repealed on Thursday, after Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) quietly signed the bill."

I think I bitched about this in this thread...

I'm not sure how much Walker had to do with all this but Wisconsin has been HORRIBLE with working standards recently. Dismantling break requirements (I have some horror stories of this) and I'm pretty sure changing some minimum wage requirements with tipped based jobs.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

Is Scott Walker still expected to win the recall?

 

[RDreamer]

I'm not sure how much Walker had to do with all this but Wisconsin has been HORRIBLE with working standards recently. Dismantling break requirements (I have some horror stories of this) and I'm pretty sure changing some minimum wage requirements with tipped based jobs.

I'm not sure how he could dismantle break requirements in Wisconsin, since we almost literally have no break requirements already. You're required to get 30 minutes of break for every 6 hours worked if you're under 18 years of age. If you're over 18 there's no break requirement except that if you do get one that's less than 30 minutes they're required to pay you for it.

Is Scott Walker still expected to win the recall?

Every poll I've seen is insanely close. I don't think it's really "expected" either way by either side. The state is split in a way I've never really seen before, and it's going to be quite a fight. As of right now it could go either way. Personally, through I want him to get recalled, I'm kind of thinking he'll end up staying on... The guy's just got so much money and has been running ads for a long time now, and his base is just as fired up as the opposing base.



EDIT: This news story just popped up on my Facebook feed. I guess that bill I mentioned up there wasn't the only one signed into law yesterday:

Senate Bill 202 repeals Wisconsin's equal pay law, effectively making it more difficult and expensive to women who are being discriminated against by their employers to file suit against them. Senate Bill 237 repeals the state's comprehensive sex education law, replacing it with a curriculum that stresses abstinence over medically accurate information about, uh, sex. Senate Bill 306 further restricts abortion and adds criminal penalties to doctors in the state. And Senate Bill 92 bans private insurance coverage of abortion (government interference in private business? So much for that whole "let businesses be free to do whatever they want so help me God bless America capitalism Adam Smith no regulations" mantra of the Tea Party.)

Time to do some research on these bills... I remember hearing about a few of them (and bitching about them here) when they were working on this during their "special jobs session," but I don't remember a lot of the details.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

I'm not sure how he could dismantle break requirements in Wisconsin, since we almost literally have no break requirements already. You're required to get 30 minutes of break for every 6 hours worked if you're under 18 years of age. If you're over 18 there's no break requirement except that if you do get one that's less than 30 minutes they're required to pay you for it.

All I remember is that from my job they told us that we they were no longer required to give us breaks and that they don't have to pay us for our thirty minutes or less breaks anymore.

 

[Dram]

Wisconsin and Walker join the war on women

"A Wisconsin law that made it easier for victims of wage discrimination to have their day in court was repealed on Thursday, after Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) quietly signed the bill."

I'll never understand people who didn't vote in 2010, because they were disappointed in Democrats and Obama. Here's a clear cut case why voting matters.

 

[Drakeon]

Is Scott Walker still expected to win the recall?

All I've seen is the republican primary voters (aka the die-hards) supported him, but that shouldn't be a shock to anyone.

 

[XMonkey]

There is no real debt. The "debt" is just a savings program that the government operates on the side. (You can think of it as a national bank that only offers savings accounts.) There is a (stupid) law that forces the government to expand this savings program whenever it wants to spend more money than it takes in through taxation. But that's the same kind of stupid law as requiring the government keep spending constant. There's no need for it. Anyway, whenever the government net spends, the law says it has to let people put more money into savings accounts held at the national bank. The government never needs to run these savings accounts, i.e., "issue debt," to net spend, because it is the creator of money in the first place. We could get rid of the national bank (bonds) tomorrow (or, at least, stop issuing new bonds, i.e., stop allowing people to put more money into their savings accounts than already exists).

But it's also important to understand that the promises made by the government when it runs this savings program ("issues debt") are no different from the promises it makes when it runs, say, a social security program. Both are promises to pay somebody money in the future. If a government reduces social security benefits, this is not at all different from defaulting on an interest payment for a bond (i.e., refusing to pay the interest off money put into one's saving account at the national bank).

I can understand this perspective and am pretty receptive to MMT in general, but one thing I've always wondered is what it says about the reaction from other countries (let's say China or any other large trading partner) when one country (let's say the US) decides to throw caution to the wind and rack up enormous amounts of debt, much more than what we have now? In an increasingly global/interconnected economy like we have today, is there reason to believe that a country like the US couldn't do this without some kind of repercussion from other countries? What are the implications for the currency market if such a thing happened? Or would a factor internal to that country act as a limiter before an external factor did?

Perhaps more to the point, is there a reason the US government shouldn't introduce a huge amount of money into the economy over a short couple of years given our current debt situation?

 

[TestOfTide]

So we have the SCOTUS likely to strike down the Affordable Care Act.

Could someone explain to me how the hell people expect Obama's approval to not drop dramatically if that occurs? If it stays Obama can try to appeal to the numerous groups that benefit from it (especially women) but without it he can't even bring up shit like the blunt amendment because the healthcare bill that was supposed to protect women from discrimination in healthcare costs would be gone and thus irrelevant.

 

[RDreamer]

Alright, I'm done reading through some of the new bills Walker just signed. The one that pisses me off the most (aside from the one mentioned on the last page of the thread that repeals the Equal Pay Enforcement Act) is the one putting an emphasis on abstinence only education and repealing the requirement that schools teaching sex ed must have a multi-faceted curriculum that includes contraception use. Completely bizarre that they now don't have to mention contraception at all.

The abortion bill wasn't as bad as anything else going around, so I'm breathing a bit of a sigh of relief. It just requires doctors to talk one on one with the woman getting the abortion and make sure she isn't being coerced into doing it.

The other abortion bill passed was a bill prohibiting private insurance exchanges from funding abortion, which is pretty BS, but I guess PPACA gave the states that power...

I'll never understand people who didn't vote in 2010, because they were disappointed in Democrats and Obama. Here's a clear cut case why voting matters.

Yeah, this has been huge proof to me that you can't just skip an election or something. Obviously I didn't skip the 2010 elections, but now I know never to do that.

 

[markatisu]

Yeah, this has been huge proof to me that you can't just skip an election or something. Obviously I didn't skip the 2010 elections, but now I know never to do that.

Yup but it will probably happen again in 2012, voter apathy for midterms is engrained in the public conscience for some odd reason

 

[Chichikov]

Inflation is directly related to aggregate demand. If aggregate demand gets too high at any given time, then prices rise. Aggregate demand gets too high when people have too much money to spend and want to spend more of it than there are goods and services in the economy to accommodate, including the capacity of producers to increase goods and services to meet the demand. (In other words, increasing aggregate demand will not cause inflation if there is capacity in the economy to produce more real goods and services to meet it. For example, unemployment represents capacity to meet higher aggregate demand without creating inflation.) Aggregate demand is most effectively decreased through taxation (taking people's money away). Aggregate demand is most effectively stimulated through spending (giving people money!).

Thinking back to your last question, is it that you think that the build up of debt over time will create inflation?

There is no real debt. The "debt" is just a savings program that the government operates on the side. (You can think of it as a national bank that only offers savings accounts.) There is a (stupid) law that forces the government to expand this savings program whenever it wants to spend more money than it takes in through taxation. But that's the same kind of stupid law as requiring the government keep spending constant. There's no need for it. Anyway, whenever the government net spends, the law says it has to let people put more money into savings accounts held at the national bank. The government never needs to run these savings accounts, i.e., "issue debt," to net spend, because it is the creator of money in the first place. We could get rid of the national bank (bonds) tomorrow (or, at least, stop issuing new bonds, i.e., stop allowing people to put more money into their savings accounts than already exists).

But it's also important to understand that the promises made by the government when it runs this savings program ("issues debt") are no different from the promises it makes when it runs, say, a social security program. Both are promises to pay somebody money in the future. If a government reduces social security benefits, this is not at all different from defaulting on an interest payment for a bond (i.e., refusing to pay the interest off money put into one's saving account at the national bank).

See: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=15348 ("From a MMT perspective it is preferable that governments stop issuing debt at all maturities. Sure enough debt-issuance is just an elaborate form of welfare assistance – the benefits of which are skewed to the more advantaged members of the society.") <-- He's talking about the national bank, a government spending program which primarily only benefits higher income earners (who have the discretionary income to put money into these interest bearing savings accounts).

So it's true what they say about you guys -
You arrive at the same destination as Keynesians, you just take the scenic route.

Spoiler

I'm not 100% serious.

 

[Oblivion]

Okay, I've defended Olbermann in the past, but now he's gone too far:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/all-about-keith-two-faced-keith-olbermann-trashes-cenk-uygur-in-lawsuit/

No one messes with ma boy, Cenk!

Yeah, this has been huge proof to me that you can't just skip an election or something. Obviously I didn't skip the 2010 elections, but now I know never to do that.

Totally agreed.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Okay, I've defended Olbermann in the past, but now he's gone too far:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/all-about-keith-two-faced-keith-olbermann-trashes-cenk-uygur-in-lawsuit/

No one messes with ma boy, Cenk!

Olbermann opined to Bohrman that Uygur had difficulty separating facts from things he wanted to be true

Ha.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Okay, I've defended Olbermann in the past, but now he's gone too far:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/all-about-keith-two-faced-keith-olbermann-trashes-cenk-uygur-in-lawsuit/

No one messes with ma boy, Cenk!




Totally agreed.

I can't stand Cenk Uygur. Not only is he a hyperbolic asshole, I can't stand clicking on youtube videos only to see it's a TYT video

 

[Jimothy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dM9DVC7kd7s

Not too bad, Bams.

Cutting spending, threatening to bomb Iran, and "not apologizing for AMERICUH" are seen as positives by a Democratic president. This country fucking sucks.

 

[Averon]

I'll never understand people who didn't vote in 2010, because they were disappointed in Democrats and Obama. Here's a clear cut case why voting matters.

One theme I heard that ran through groups of liberals that didn't vote in 2010 was that they wanted to "punish" Obama and Dems for not pushing better progressive legislation. If there's a better case of shooting-yourself-in-the-head I haven't seen it yet.